Losing A War Because Of A Public Relations Campaign

Yesterday the U.K. Mail Online posted a story about the increase in casualties among British soldiers in Afghanistan due to the American rules of engagement in the war.

The article reports:

British soldiers in Afghanistan claim that new tactics are preventing them shooting at the Taliban until they have been fired at themselves – resulting in an alarming rise in the number of casualties.

The troops say they have had to change their procedures as part of American-led efforts to cut down on the number of civilians being wounded, but the new approach has made them more vulnerable.

 In the past three months, 11 British soldiers have been killed by enemy gunfire in Helmand province, compared with just two in the same period last year.

No one is in favor of civilian casualties, but this is no way to fight a war.

The article reports one officer’s comments:

One junior non-commissioned officer said: ‘When I arrived in Helmand, my officers said our tactics were going to change.

‘They said that if I saw somebody carrying a rifle or a rocket launcher, I shouldn’t fire at him. Only if he shot at me or a member of my patrol, and I could see a muzzle flash from his rifle, could I use my weapon.

‘I was shocked and so were my mates. We are trained to close in and kill the enemy, not to let him stroll on, watch us and let him choose the best time to ambush us.

 ‘It has been hard to obey these orders while on patrol. There have been many occasions when we have come under fire from the Taliban, who we’ve seen following us through the green zone.

‘On previous tours, we would have engaged the enemy first to show them what we were made of. We’re up for a fight but now we always have to back off.

‘It makes me question the point of us being here.

‘Older guys like me have seen the tactics change over the years and 2012 is the hardest because we’re taking so many backward steps. I really feel for the families of the guys who’ve lost their lives, and I miss my mates who are dead.’

I don’t mean to be difficult, but would someone please explain to me what peaceful reason a member of the Taliban might have for carrying a rocket launcher? We need to get politicians out of wars and let the military do what is best for the troops and the war effort.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Reliable Source In Afghanistan

One of the few people I actually believe when I hear anything about Afghanistan is Michael Yon. He has spent a lot of time there and has the contacts to find out the truth, and because he reports for himself, he is free to tell the truth.

Michael posted an article today about the recent poisoning of Afghanistan girls because they were attending school. His article posts the emails between him and one of the Taliban leaders. He relates the correspondence:

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid fully owned up to their terrorist attacks that unfolded just days ago in Kabul and elsewhere.  He emailed to me, and contacted large media, and took credit for multiple suicide and other attacks.  And so it was natural to ask Mujahid if the Taliban (there are many groups, and there are lone wolves) was behind this atrocity against the girls yesterday.

His answer today:

“we are respecting womens .  taliban movement became in power againt those who kidnape womens and rap girls .  we don,t know about these girls , who and for what reason they kidnape. we are not support this .  Their arae a  lot af those creminals who were involve in that kind of cases b4 , now they are in power . and I personly sure that  in this case they will be involve”

And so I responded to Mujahid’s answer with a question.  Will the Taliban bring these criminal(s) who poisoned the girls to Islamic Justice?  Mujahid answered minutes ago:

“As I wrote u in my last mail we are agaist this criminals activety , so of corse we will bring them to islamic justice.”

Of course, not everything that happens out there is in accordance with the policies of the Afghanistan government, or our troops, or the Taliban.  When a Soldier or Soldiers apparently murdered 17 Afghans, those murders were not sanctioned by our side, though it looks like we own it.  Likewise, the Taliban did abolish opium and the use of boys for sex, and they did hang people for raping women.  Meanwhile, the government of Afghanistan is more apt to make a woman marry someone who rapes her.  This is a complex mess.  There is no black and white in this.  The more you learn the more your head spins.

If there is any good news out of this, it is that many girls are in school.

The bottom line here is that Afghanistan is a mess.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Bothers Me

I have supported the war in Afghanistan. I believed that we needed to go in and clean out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I am disappointed that we have not been willing to commit the manpower to do so and that the rules of engagement have prevented us from doing so. I am now at the point where I think the only time we should send our military anywhere is when we arm them to the teeth and tell them to take no hostages. Well, I really must be in the minority on that one.

The UK Telegraph reported today that American soldiers were barred from bringing guns into a talk given by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

The article reports:

Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told “something had come to light” and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols.

“Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy – we just adjust,” said the sergeant who was told to clear the hall of weapons.

Major General Mark Gurganus later said he gave the order because Afghan troops attending the talk were unarmed and he wanted the policy to be consistent for all.

This is just not smart. What would have happened if there had been an attack on the base at that particular moment? Now we are sending our soldiers into harm’s way and taking their guns away. Whoever made that decision should immediately be relieved of his command.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Not Something America Should Be Supporting In Any Way

Chief Justice Shinwani from the Supreme Court ...

Image via Wikipedia

I probably would not qualify as a feminist by today’s standards. I believe women should be able to do any job they are qualified for and should be paid equally for their work, but the current definition of feminism has left that concept far behind. However, I have very strong ideas about how women should be treated. Some of those ideas come from spending part of my childhood in the American south, where chivalry and manners can still be found. Thus, I was very disturbed when I read the following article.

The Toronto Star posted an article today about recent comments by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

The article reports:

In remarks made Tuesday, Karzai backed a “code of conduct” written by the Ulema Council of 150 leading Muslim clerics. It could dramatically restrict women’s daily lives and threaten a return to the dark days of Taliban rule.

“Men are fundamental and women are secondary,” the council said in its statement released last week, and later published on Karzai’s own website.

…It says women should not travel without a male guardian or mingle with men in public places such as schools, offices or markets. It also allows wife-beating in the case of a “sharia-compliant” reason, although it rejects forced marriage and the bartering of women to settle disputes.

In Kabul, Karzai said that the council had not put “any limitations” on women, and that it was only stating “the sharia law of all Muslims and all Afghans.” But some Muslim scholars have disputed the clerics’ strict interpretation.

This was what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban. I remember the joy when people took out their radios and danced when the American troops arrived. Have the people of Afghanistan forgotten their own recent past?

The article further reports:

Before the 2001 invasion, Afghan women were confined to their homes and forced to wear burkas. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and females could not get medical attention from male doctors.

Since then women have made large strides, returning to work and school, starting businesses and taking part in the political process. But their lives are frequently at risk, and have become more difficult as security has frayed in recent months.

“Sixty-five per cent of the population is under the age of 25, and young women are not prepared to take it any more,” says Toronto author and journalist Sally Armstrong, who has written on Afghan women’s rights. “They are brave, and they march in the street. The message is ‘Karzai must go.’”

Karzai has been backtracking on women’s rights in recent years, as Western countries began to roll up their military operations. By 2014, most will have left the country, although they have pledged to continue support for its development.

President Karzai is hedging his bets because foreign forces are leaving his country, and he is faced with making friends with the Taliban or being literally left hanging. The mistake made early in our dealings with Afghanistan was allowing Sharia Law to be written into the country’s constitution. Until their constitution changes, Afghanistan will never truly be a free country.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Our Schizophrenic Policy In Afghanistan

Members of the Afghan national army stand in f...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that the Taliban is opening a liaison office in Qatar as a step in negotiating peace in Afghanistan. The only problem with the peace talks that will be held in Qatar is that the negotiations totally shut out Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government. Shades of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Leaving aside any opinion on negotiating with the Taliban, what is the history of success of treaties that were not negotiated with the leaders of the countries they involved?

The article reports:

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said Tuesday that the office in Qatar will conduct negotiations only with the “international community.”

“There are two essential sides in the current situation in the country that has been ongoing for the past 10 years. One is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the other side is the United States of America and their foreign allies,” Mr. Mujahid said in an e-mailed statement, according to the Associated Press.

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan refers to the country’s name under Taliban rule

As a person with a family member who did two tours in Afghanistan, I can’t even find the words to express how disgusted I am with the fact that President Obama is abandoning the country and leaving it in the hands of the people who gave us 9/11. It may be time to leave Afghanistan, but we should at least include the Afghanistan government in the negotiations.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Total Surrender In The Name Of Peace

Andrew McCarthy posted an article in the National Review Online today based on a story published in the Hindu which states that the Obama Administration has chosen Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to mediate negotiations between the United States and the Taliban. Even if you ignore the concept of negotiating with the Taliban, there are some serious problems with this arrangement.

These are a few of the things in Sheikh al-Qaradawi’s past that make him a less than idea moderator. In 2003, he issued a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq. He maintains that Islam “will conquer Europe [and] will conquer America.” He urges the destruction of Israel.

The article lists some of his ideas:

Thus does Sheikh Qaradawi champion Hamas, mass-murder attacks, and suicide bombings. “They are not suicide operations,” he brays. “These are heroic martyrdom operations.” Indeed, he elaborates, “The martyr operations is [sic] the greatest of all sorts of jihad in the cause of Allah.”

…Qaradawi uses his al-Jazeera platform to preach this message to the Muslim masses. As the Middle East Media Research Institute and Robert Spencer document, in one memorable Friday “sermon” broadcast in 2009, he prayed that Allah would kill all Jews: “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one.” He added that throughout history, Allah had imposed upon Jews “people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Adolph Hitler.”

There is a concept in Sharia Law called taqiyya. Loosely translated, this term means that it is acceptable to lie to an infidel in order to advance the cause of Islam. The concept is based on Quran 3:28 and 16:106 and other Islamic literature (my reference is SHARIAH, THE THREAT TO AMERICA, AN EXERCISE IN COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS, REPORT OF TEAM B II, published by the Center for Security Policy).

I reported yesterday (rightwinggranny.com) on the discussions to release some terrorist leaders from Guantanamo to Afghanistan as part of the peace discussions. What we are seeing here is the Obama Administration’s desperation to declare peace (and American troop withdrawal) in Afghanistan before the 2012 election. Unfortunately, because of the way they are going about it, all they are doing is setting up a government which includes the Taliban and will be little different from the one that gave us the events of 9/11.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

In The Muslim Culture Weakness Does Not Lead To Peace

The Muslim culture is a very male-oriented culture where power is respected and weakness is not. I am not sure that our State Department and the Obama Administration are taking that into consideration in some of their recent actions.

Reuters reported yesterday that the Obama Administration is considering transferring a senior Taliban official now at Guantanamo over to Afghan custody. Haven’t we learned from our mistakes? In Iraq (see rightwinggranny.com) Ali Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah operative involved in the planning of the kidnapping and murder of American soldiers in Karbala in 2007, who is also guilty of arming and training Iraqi insurgents, was turned over to the Iraqis as the Americans withdrew (rather than taken to Guantanamo) and is expected to be released to either Beirut or Tehran.

The Reuters story reports:

One U.S. intelligence official said there had been intense bipartisan opposition in Congress to the proposed transfer.

“I can tell you that the hair on the back of my neck went up when they walked in with this a month ago, and there’s been very, very strong letters fired off to the administration,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

The senior administration official confirmed that the White House has received letters from lawmakers on the issue. “We will not characterize classified Congressional correspondence, but what is clear is the President’s order to us to continue to discuss these important matters with Congress,” the official said.

Even supporters of a controversial deal with the Taliban – a fundamentalist group that refers to Americans as infidels and which is still killing U.S., NATO and Afghan soldiers on the battlefield – say the odds of striking an accord are slim.

Critics of Obama’s peace initiative remain deeply skeptical of the Taliban’s willingness to negotiate, given that the West’s intent to pull out most troops after 2014 could give insurgents a chance to reclaim lost territory or push the weak Kabul government toward collapse.

President Obama refuses to send anyone to Guantanamo. Unfortunately that refusal is putting Americans and our national security at risk.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Comments From Someone Who Is There

This entry was posted on Power Line on November 9. I delayed in posting it because I was waiting for permission from the writer. I am posting a small amount of what he said, please follow the above link to read the rest.

Pete Hegseth, founder of Vets For Freedom, is now posted to Afghanistan, where he is training Afghans as well as American and coalition troops. His reports on the situation there are as knowledgeable as any you can find. Here is his latest dispatch, hot off the press:

Pakistan. With haven across the border, the insurgency is literally able to regenerate itself faster than we can degrade it. Likewise, conditions have not yet been made inhospitable for insurgents in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, so insurgents flow back and forth. Insurgent leadership operates openly in many parts of Pakistan, training, equipping, and indoctrinating young fighters to join the so-called “jihad.” Insurgent safe haven in, and support from, Pakistan is the single largest inhibitor to success and stability in Afghanistan.

Afghan Government. As I noted in previous emails, few Afghans view the administration of President Karzai favorably—undermining the national government’s ability to be seen as legitimate. More damningly, the government’s ability to project positive influence to the local level remains minimal. Basic local governmental functions—such as dispute resolution, swift justice, good education, and land management—are going unmet, providing a tailor-made opportunity for the Taliban to fill the void.

Taliban. Speaking of the Taliban, they have proven to be a very resilient, adaptive, and ideologically dedicated bunch. They’re not giants, and not liked by most Afghans. But their militants—along with regional shadow governments—remain potent and influential. The way I see it, the Taliban wouldn’t kill the head of the “High Peace Council” unless they felt fairly confident they don’t need to negotiate with the Coalition or Afghan government. We’re killing lots of them, but they still believe time, history, and God is on their side.

Timeline. The perception of our pending exit looms ever larger, marginalizing our influence by the day. Afghans are already starting to look through, and past, the Coalition (e.g. Karzai saying he’d side with Pakistan if they went to war with us) and hoarding supplies, weapons, and equipment for whatever is coming next (i.e. “gettin’ while the gettin’s good).

Population Response. The people (especially non-Pashtuns) don’t like the Taliban and don’t want them to come back. But, at the same time, they’re quietly terrified that the Taliban’s return is inevitable (and arming themselves accordingly). I’ve yet to meet a single Afghan who believes the situation here will improve once we leave. My orbit is admittedly limited, but I regularly speak with Coalition and Afghan elements from across the country—mostly mid-to-low-level folks—and the answer is universally the same. Similarly, while impressive tactical gains have been made throughout the South, there is limited evidence that the population in those areas have truly shifted their longer-term allegiance to the Afghan government or security forces.

Coalition Warfare. 49 nations are involved in the Coalition—but only a handful contributes on a meaningful scale. This is not to indict the soldiers from the other 40+ countries—most would love to contribute more. Yet, national (political) caveats limit their locations, missions, and activities. These nations therefore become more of a hindrance than an asset; consuming time, energy, and resources that could be spent more effectively. This fact is the worst kept secret in Kabul.

Afghan Capabilities. The lack of education and level of ignorance in Afghanistan is staggering. Literally, only 1 in 10 men who join the Afghan National Army can write his own name, and only slightly more can count. Similarly, the origins of our effort here is an enigma to many Afghans. September 11th is burned in our brains, but is largely unknown to Afghans outside of large cities. That said, Afghans are not dumb—they are savvy, resourceful, and generous people. But they are also prone to conspiracy theories, propaganda, and rumors. It’s no wonder the Taliban are so effective in using local communications mechanisms to shape the narrative—portraying the war as imperial aggression rather than self-defense and support for democratic governance.

Afghan Security Force Viability. In previous emails I’ve discussed this topic in the context of funding and force size. Those critiques remain. However, time has increased my concern about the long-term viability of the force. At a recent press conference, Afghan security forces acknowledged that “their goal is to no longer defeat the insurgency, but to create capable security forces.” Similarly, there is a great deal of doubt—especially at the soldier level where new Afghan combat outposts are being established—whether Afghans will maintain the initiative or just abandon contentious postings when we leave.

Similarly, the lack of Afghan urgency is readily on display at our center. At the end of a recent partnered class (meaning both Coalition and Afghan), and following a robust and engaging discussion on insurgent groups, the hand of an Afghan student shot up. I called on him. He spoke and the interpreter translated—looking very embarrassed. Sheepishly the interpreter said, “he [the Afghan soldier] wants to know when he can go home [for the day].” It was 2:00pm.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Hero Who Did What Was Right Rather Than What Was Political

Picture of the medal of honor

Image via Wikipedia

I am writing this article with very mixed emotions. There are and have been a number of people in my family who serve or have served in the military. In my study of history and listening to stories of veterans going back to World War II, I have learned that many things have changed about the way America fights wars. Not all of these changes are good. It is with that in mind that I write this article.

The source of this article is a Wall Street Journal article from September 16. I am not linking to the article because it is a subscribers only article. I am working from the hard copy (some of us still do read real newspapers!).

On September 15, President Obama presented Sgt. Dakota Meyer with the Medal of Honor. Sgt. Meyer, a Marine, was given the medal for his actions on September 8, 2009. He disobeyed an order to stand firm and went to rescue members of his patrol. In doing this, he saved the lives of 13 Marines and 23 Afghan soldiers.

There are a few aspects of this article that bother me. The article states:

Despite the large Taliban force, U. S. artillery support was denied and helicopter support was late in arriving, as commanders worried they might violate a tactical directive to limit the use of air power when civilians could be injured or killed.

Are the people in charge of our troops so stupid that they believe the Taliban is not aware of this tactical directive and purposely attacks in areas where they know we will not use air power? Would the people in charge of our troops like to meet face to face with the parents and spouses of the people who have been killed as a result of this policy? Diplomacy and war are two separate things–would someone please tell Washington that.

The article further reports:

As the fighting rages, he (Sgt. Meyer) and Staff Sgt. Juan Rodriguez-Chavez were ordered to remain with a Humvee outside the battle zone.

“We requested a few times and were denied to come in,” Sgt. Meyer said in a statement released by the Marine Corps. “Finally, we knew what we needed to do and decided we were going to go on in on our own.”

Thank God for the courage of those two men. I am sorry that our military leadership would rather sacrifice our soldiers in the name of public relations than actually win the war.

Enhanced by Zemanta